Christianity... An issue,

[sandy whitelinger]

Yes, I understand you believe this, but there are people who believe in God, in the Bible, and yeah, even believe in Jesus, but don't believe that Jesus is God.

There lies the difference, I expect.

If you believe the Bible then you must believe that no man gets to the Father but by Jesus. Therefore if Moses and David are saved then they must have believed in Christ.

Perhaps you have not considered this from I Cor. 10 KJV pertaining to Moses and the Old Testament;

[1] Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
[2] And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
[3] And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
[4] And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

 

[jeffrey]

Moses...notorious murderer. Repented of his sins and accepted Jesus in his heart. Where will he go?

I don't think this was murder. Moses was acting righteously - sometimes God demands the blood of others.

If God is all powerful, why don't he do it himself?

 

[Ody]

If God is all powerful, why don't he do it himself?

Why should he make his greatness be occupied with such a base act?

 

[jeffrey]

So let me get this straight. We got Moses who's a murderer, but he's not, then he is, then he isn't, We got David who believed in Christ over 2 thousand years before Jesus was born, What ever happened to the OP's question? IMO, It's what's in your heart, not what you believe. Whether it's heaven, reincarnation, or just a smile on your face when you die, it's about who you are. Not your religion.

 

[jeffrey]

Why should he make his greatness be occupied with such a base act?

He could be creative in the way he does it. He's already done the piller of salt bit. Maybe a brass statue?

 

[Booko]

If you believe the Bible then you must believe that no man gets to the Father but by Jesus. Therefore if Moses and David are saved then they must have believed in Christ.

Actually, I don't "have" to do any such thing.

When it comes to the relationship between the "Father" and "Jesus", Jesus said in the Bible, when He was asked about the time of the end, that He didn't know when it would be -- only the "Father" knew.

I realize you believe differently, but when I read passages like that, I do not come to the conclusion that Jesus was God. Preexistent, sure. More than just a human, oh absolutely. God Himself -- nope.

Because of that, Moses and King David can have all the salvation they want without Jesus. Without God...nope, they couldn't. If they had lived in the time of Jesus, that would be another story.

Perhaps you have not considered this from I Cor. 10 KJV pertaining to Moses and the Old Testament;

I have not only considered this for years, I have been blustered at for years until I am, frankly, a bit weary of hearing it. If we're discussing things as friends and an even exchange of ideas, that's cool, but if I get a sniff that someone is telling me what I "must" believe, like you did above, well, frankly, my ears just turn down the volume. Please don't take this as a personal insult. It's intended as a bit of unsolicited advice on how to present your beliefs in a way that people might actually hear and consider them. Like Paul said, ya gotta be all things to all people.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If you believe the Bible then you must believe that no man gets to the Father but by Jesus. Therefore if Moses and David are saved then they must have believed in Christ.

Actually, I don't "have" to do any such thing....Because of that, Moses and King David can have all the salvation they want without Jesus.

If you wish to believe what the bible says then it seems to me that believing what it says is part of that. Since the Bible says that no man ("no man" doesn't exclude any Old Testament figures) gets to the Father but by Jesus. It's not my idea.

If we're discussing things as friends and an even exchange of ideas, that's cool, but if I get a sniff that someone is telling me what I "must" believe, like you did above, well, frankly, my ears just turn down the volume. Please don't take this as a personal insult. It's intended as a bit of unsolicited advice on how to present your beliefs in a way that people might actually hear and consider them. Like Paul said, ya gotta be all things to all people.

Discussing it as friends is entirely what I have in mind and there is no offense taken or insult intended. What I presented is only what the bible teaches. You are free to believe what you wish but I was assuming that you said you believe the Bible. That is all.

 

[Booko]

If you wish to believe what the bible says then it seems to me that believing what it says is part of that. Since the Bible says that no man ("no man" doesn't exclude any Old Testament figures) gets to the Father but by Jesus. It's not my idea.

Discussing it as friends is entirely what I have in mind and there is no offense taken or insult intended. What I presented is only what the bible teaches. You are free to believe what you wish but I was assuming that you said you believe the Bible. That is all.

I realize that you don't intend insult, or I wouldn't bother responding to your post. The thing is, it's still insulting.

You see, I am "free to believe" what I wish. (Subtext: I need your permission?)

But I get something a little different from the text. (Subtext: I don't *really* believe in the Bible.)

(Subtext: Sandy's understanding of the text is the only *proper* one.)

Uh, can you understand why, on my end of the Internet, this might come off as just a tad arrogant, as if you are speaking for God Himself?

I have no problem with what you believe on this issue. I can see how it's an understanding that can be taken from the text. It's not like I think you're nuts or anything, sheesh.

And I can see several other understandings, at least a couple of which do less violence to the order in which they were written.

fwiw, the Jews have a tradition, "For every verse there are 70 meanings, only 1 of which is commonly known among the people."

I believe our Creator is very Creative indeed, that He can inspire people to make such a creative work as the Bible, which can say so many great things to so many people, and deliver simultaneouly whatever message so many billions of people need to hear.

I don't know how old you are, and it doesn't really matter for this discussion, but the message I needed to hear when I was a teenager is different from when I was in my 20s, and now that I'm in my 40s I take even more meaning from it. Isn't that a great thing, that God can give so many different people what they need, all at the same time, and all in one Book?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I realize that you don't intend insult, or I wouldn't bother responding to your post. The thing is, it's still insulting.

You see, I am "free to believe" what I wish. (Subtext: I need your permission?)

But I get something a little different from the text. (Subtext: I don't *really* believe in the Bible.)

(Subtext: Sandy's understanding of the text is the only *proper* one.)

Uh, can you understand why, on my end of the Internet, this might come off as just a tad arrogant, as if you are speaking for God Himself?

I have no problem with what you believe on this issue. I can see how it's an understanding that can be taken from the text. It's not like I think you're nuts or anything, sheesh.

And I can see several other understandings, at least a couple of which do less violence to the order in which they were written.

fwiw, the Jews have a tradition, "For every verse there are 70 meanings, only 1 of which is commonly known among the people."

I believe our Creator is very Creative indeed, that He can inspire people to make such a creative work as the Bible, which can say so many great things to so many people, and deliver simultaneouly whatever message so many billions of people need to hear.

I don't know how old you are, and it doesn't really matter for this discussion, but the message I needed to hear when I was a teenager is different from when I was in my 20s, and now that I'm in my 40s I take even more meaning from it. Isn't that a great thing, that God can give so many different people what they need, all at the same time, and all in one Book?

Creative writing...translation; when in doubt, mumble. You answered nothing, seem to believe in nothing, have trouble with simple English sentences and take offense easily . These are not great credentials for a debate forum. G'day mate.

 

[Booko]

Creative writing...translation; when in doubt, mumble. You answered nothing, seem to believe in nothing, have trouble with simple English sentences and take offense easily . These are not great credentials for a debate forum. G'day mate.

Subtext: I didn't agree with you, so now you will take your bat and ball and go home.

Gee, Sandy, I didn't realize that in order for me to qualify for a debate forum I had to insult you. Is that in the rules somewhere? I may have overlooked it.

You've certainly been insulting enough, though I don't feel insulted by it.

I mean, it was really nice of God Himself to come down from on high and tell you exactly what's in my heart, so you could come on RF and set me straight.

How awful of me that I didn't just do a knee-jerk reaction and respond in kind, and thought maybe turning the other cheek was the wiser course of action.

I most humbly apologize that I tried not to act like a jerk and tried to communicate with you. :sorry1:

I'll try to remember not to do that again.

Have a nice day.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I disagree, Sandy. I think Booko has answered quite thoroughly.



Following your reasoning, to get this correctly:



1) Jesus is the Jehovah God in the OT.

2) Moses and David accepted the Jehovah God into their hearts.

3) Therefore, Moses and David accepted Jesus into their hearts.



Does this mean that the Jews in the OT, who accepted the God Jehovah into their hearts, are really Christian and didn't know it?




Forgive my ignorance. We Buddhists are kinda slow and stupid like that.





Peace,
Mystic

 

[michel]

So let me get this straight. We got Moses who's a murderer, but he's not, then he is, then he isn't, We got David who believed in Christ over 2 thousand years before Jesus was born, What ever happened to the OP's question? IMO, It's what's in your heart, not what you believe. Whether it's heaven, reincarnation, or just a smile on your face when you die, it's about who you are. Not your religion.

I tend to agree, but that's just me.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I disagree, Sandy. I think Booko has answered quite thoroughly.
Following your reasoning, to get this correctly:
1) Jesus is the Jehovah God in the OT.

2) Moses and David accepted the Jehovah God into their hearts.

3) Therefore, Moses and David accepted Jesus into their hearts.

Does this mean that the Jews in the OT, who accepted the God Jehovah into their hearts, are really Christian and didn't know it?


Forgive my ignorance. We Buddhists are kinda slow and stupid like that.
Peace,
Mystic

Yet Booku said none of these things.

In your list number 1 is wrong. Jesus is not Jehovah. What hasn't been answered is (assuming that one accepts the Bible, which was a focal point previously) how to answer the quote by Jesus that no man gets to the Father (Jehovah) but by Him?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Subtext: I didn't agree with you, so now you will take your bat and ball and go home.

Gee, Sandy, I didn't realize that in order for me to qualify for a debate forum I had to insult you. Is that in the rules somewhere? I may have overlooked it.

You've certainly been insulting enough, though I don't feel insulted by it.

I mean, it was really nice of God Himself to come down from on high and tell you exactly what's in my heart, so you could come on RF and set me straight.

How awful of me that I didn't just do a knee-jerk reaction and respond in kind, and thought maybe turning the other cheek was the wiser course of action.

I most humbly apologize that I tried not to act like a jerk and tried to communicate with you. :sorry1:

I'll try to remember not to do that again.

Have a nice day.

Obfuscation of points and issuses is why there is nothing to discuss with you. Instead of answering my points you change the subject or give a the knee-jerk reponse that you''ve been offended. I'm offended that you are so easily offended.

 

[lunamoth]

Sandy, you might want to look into the Baha'i Faith before you go any further with this. Baha'is believe that Moses was the Christ. It's a very different ball game than the one you are playing.

lunamoth

 

[Booko]

Obfuscation of points and issuses is why there is nothing to discuss with you. Instead of answering my points you change the subject or give a the knee-jerk reponse that you''ve been offended. I'm offended that you are so easily offended.

Which part of "I am not offended" did you not understand?

I tried to explain to you how the way you wrote could come of as insulting. I never said I was insulted, because I am not.

And what exactly does this have to do with the OP, I'm sure I don't. If for some bizarre reason you'd like to pursue it elsewhere, go ahead.

 

[Booko]

Sandy, you might want to look into the Baha'i Faith before you go any further with this. Baha'is believe that Moses was the Christ. It's a very different ball game than the one you are playing.

You're right of course that I believe it's the same spirit, but that's not where my response was coming from. I'm a Baha'i, but every religion-related argument I put forth doesn't come from that pov.

Mostly, I just think it's a questionable hermeneutic to claim that Moses and David were saved because they believed in Christ, given the order the texts were given to us.

Among other things, it also seems to deny salvation to Jews who lived before Christ, which is something I find debatable just from a purely Biblical standpoint.

Unfortunately, it seems I will not be able to get that far in a discussion with Sandy to find out her views on this subject. Oh well.

As for the OP, as bizarre as it sounds, yes, I do believe it's possible for someone to have lived the worst life imaginable, and still be "saved" on their deathbed. (But I bet you already knew that too. )

Now, as to what the odds are that some of those death *row* conversions are genuine, well, fortunately I'm not allowed to gamble either.

 

[lunamoth]

You're right of course that I believe it's the same spirit, but that's not where my response was coming from.

I just think it's a questionable hermeneutic to claim that Moses and David were saved because they believed in Christ, given the order the texts were given to us.

Among other things, it also seems to deny salvation to Jews who lived before Christ, which is something I find debatable just from a purely Biblical standpoint.

Unfortunately, it seems I will not be able to get that far in a discussion with Sandy to find out her views on this subject. Oh well.

As for the OP, as bizarre as it sounds, yes, I do believe it's possible for someone to have lived the worst life imaginable, and still be "saved" on their deathbed. (But I bet you already knew that too. )

Now, as to what the odds are that some of those death *row* conversions are genuine, well, fortunately I'm not allowed to gamble either.

As you know I probably have more in common with you as far as these things go than I do with Sandy. However, it did seem that you were dancing around the subject. FWIW, I retain the universalist heterodoxy that I had before I was a Baha'i, while I was a Baha'i, and now that I am no longer a Baha'i. Is that wrong?

We'll all be dancing in the next life. Salvation is for now.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Booko]

As you know I probably have more in common with you as far as these things go than I do with Sandy. However, it did seem that you were dancing around the subject. FWIW, I retain the universalist heterodoxy that I had before I was a Baha'i, while I was a Baha'i, and now that I am no longer a Baha'i. Is that wrong?

If I was dancing around anything, it's because I have learned from hard experience that when conversing with someone from Sandy's pov, taking the issue head on in a first post is not likely to produce either communication or civility. And as you see, even being tactful and trying to develop a thread slowly is no guarantee of success.

As for being a universalist...you're asking me? Sheesh, it's not like somebody died and I became God. I don't have a problem with you being a universalist, but then I don't have a problem with people who aren't either. I disagree with them, but so what?

As for your church, I thought they were pretty universal anyway?

Even the RCC admits there may be salvation outside Christianity, and ime the Episcoplians usually get there much sooner on issues like that.

 

[lunamoth]

If I was dancing around anything, it's because I have learned from hard experience that when conversing with someone from Sandy's pov, taking the issue head on in a first post is not likely to produce either communication or civility. And as you see, even being tactful and trying to develop a thread slowly is no guarantee of success.

Ah then, forgive me for interfering.

As for being a universalist...you're asking me? Sheesh, it's not like somebody died and I became God. I don't have a problem with you being a universalist, but then I don't have a problem with people who aren't either. I disagree with them, but so what?

As for your church, I thought they were pretty universal anyway?

Even the RCC admits there may be salvation outside Christianity, and ime the Episcoplians usually get there much sooner on issues like that.

Well, I certainly can't speak for what others believe, but I don't see any scripture, doctrine or dogma that says I'm condemned myself if I don't believe others are condemned.

peace,
lunamoth